On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
I see no way to explain the narrow EAI use case in this context
without either dragging in a whole bunch of EAI that has no business
being here or leaving various things dangling.
ack. mumble.
So I'll suggest a bit of an amalgam, including a cross reference of the type
I prefer to avoid:
1. State that this removes a restriction that was never essential.
2. State that the timing of this removal is to accomodate EAI and for its
use of the now-available features, see [RFCxxxx].
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:28 AM, John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote
(with a large part of this distribution list removed):
So, is it better to put in a sentence about representing non-ASCII
text in the group name without including a replyable address?
The main motivation is to provide a syntax for a non-replyable address
in From: and Sender: headers for cases where that is appropriate. See
the EAI downgrade documents for a concrete example.
A secondary motivation is to remove an arcane restriction that has not
turned out to be useful in practice.
Dave and John (Levine) are both suggesting an informative reference
from this document to some piece of the EAI documents (which I guess
should be one or both of draft-ietf-eai-5738bis, Section 7, and
draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade, Section 3.2.1).
Ned and John (Klensin), can you live with that (I know it's not your
preference). All: which (or both) should the reference be to?
Barry